mic_none

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Marskell Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Marskell

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Marskell

[edit]

Final (93/5/4); Ended Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:32:01 UTC

Marskell (talk · contribs) - After some consideration, I have decided to nominate myself for adminship. I hope no one minds the self-nom—I’ve never had a problem with those. A few have offered recently and rather than choosing, I decided to do it myself.

I have been a Wikipedian two years today (a bit of "planned serendipity" here) and have recently passed 11,000 edits, which I think are well spread across the namespaces. I have frequented policy discussions for quite a while (most recently at WP:ATT) and (re-)read through the P&Gs more systematically in preparation for this nom. I’ve been around long enough not just to understand the policies, but also how they evolve over time.

My main article contribution has been four successful FACs. I have become quite involved in the FA process, including helping oversee the Featured article review and creating WP:1FAPQ (which still hasn’t quite taken off). I have closed keeps at AfD, though I’ll need to ease back in there, as it’s been a while. Cheers all, Marskell 12:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepted, self-nom. Marskell 12:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: The main admin task I expect to undertake is AfD closures. The backlog there has waxed and waned over time, but it can always use more admins. When I have patrolled, it’s generally been on Newpages. I think the tools will be somewhat self-fulfilling in this regard: I’ll be more inclined to patrol as I’ll be able to delete junk/vandal start-ups immediately. Finally, the work I do now at FAR is essentially admin decision-making (removing FA status) and I thought it best to make it official. Marskell 12:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I’m most proud of the FAs. Planetary habitability will always be closest to my heart because it was my first FA, taken from start-up (it needs an overhaul reference-wise, I’ll admit). My most gratifying moments have been noticing its translation into four different languages. At present, I’m pleased as punch with getting Norte Chico rolling; Brittanica has zilch. Oh, and I started Merry Christmas—I was surprised I had the chance. Marskell 12:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Stress, occasionally. Conflicts specific to me, not really. Long and sometimes testy talk discussions re POV are par for the course, and I have had my share of those. I’ve also been party to others' conflicts, including a few times at FAR, but not as a main disputant. (The closest I’ve come to conflict was probably on astrology, about nine months ago, the only time I've started an RfC.) Always be amiable and never underestimate the wisdom of letting things blow over—not with vandals obviously, but with established users who believe in their edits. What seems earth-shaking tonight will appear less so tomorrow; tell people to cool when they're not, keep your sense of humour, and a large majority of conflicts will disappear without escalation. Marskell 12:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Dgies
1. You mentioned that you intend to use adminship to help clear AfD backlogs, but your AfD history is a bit thin. Can you please explain how you would handle an AfD in which there were lots of people arguing things like "keep, it's definitely notable", and a handful of people offering evidence that it does not satisfy the relevant notability criteria? —Dgiest c 19:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Hi Dgies. My AfD contributions are a little thin for the last year. That it's been a while is a fair enough comment, but I have commented on and closed AfDs and I am not unfamiliar with the debates surrounding them. (I created Category:Wikipedia proportion and emphasis, once upon a time.) Also, when I said in the nomination that "I’ll need to ease back in [at AfD]" I did mean it; I have no intention of immediately rushing to close difficult AfDs should I get the tools.
To answer your question more directly, I would look for consensus based on policy, where there is disagreement, as I do now at FAR. "Keep, it's definitely notable" is a strong argument with sources, and a weak argument without them (or, at least, without some suggestion they can provided). And, I should note that the former is a strong argument regardless of my own opinion; I've never found secondary schools notable enough to demand articles, but if a school article is or can obviously be sourced, and the consensus is keep, then I'll keep it. Closing AfDs should never be exercise in POINT. Now, I will need to re-acculturate with certain types of articles, and, as I say, I intend to do so before any difficult closings. The notability guidelines will be helpers here; WP:V and WP:NOR (or WP:ATT, if it's finalized) will remain the final go-to point.
Optional question from ST47Talk
5. You've been here for months, made thousands of edits, and devoted hundreds of hours to Wikipedia without pay or and tangible reward. Above you said why you wanted to be an admin, but why do you want to be a Wikipedian? What was your motivation for joining, and for staying?
A: My motivation for joining was that it seemed a more enriching net hobby than yahoo euchre. It keeps me reading and writing, and, however slightly, I've contributed to the spread of knowledge. As noted in Q2, having one of the articles you've worked on translated, is gratifying indeed. Marskell 12:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from CanadianCaesar
6. Is Pluto a planet according to your heart?
A: My heart...yes. My head, no. If I say more I'm inevitably going to offend somebody... Marskell 12:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just as long as you don't speedy it as a rock with no claim to notability. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support Level headed editor, even during difficult content disputes. Zeitzen(talk) 12:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support I usually am loath to support self-noms, but that is usualy because they are inexperienced. You are not. I thus will support you. Captain panda In vino veritas 13:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support If this was six months and little AfD experience, I might not support, but the experience and arguments here in particular impressed me. Also, two weeks after the RfC, Marskell's relations with Aquirata seemed had become collegial again. I think Marskell is a humble and well-intentioned editor who will make a good sysop.--Kchase T 13:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Marskell does some good stuff at FAR, and with articles, and is a decent Wikipedian to work with within the community. LuciferMorgan 14:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strongest Support. One of our best. The main thing is we need more admins — especially AfD-closing admins — who actually edit and review articles. These are the people who actually do the work for Wikipedia, which means they have the best perspective possible. If I knew you were interested in the tools, I would've nominated. — Deckiller 14:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Marskell is a highly respected community member, and is intelligent, considered and balanced in all his actions. + Ceoil 14:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, great candidate. Kusma (討論) 15:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. An experienced, respected, and productive editor. Regarding the comments by aeropagitica, if Marskell is proposing to close AfDs, that seems like a reason to ask for the tools. I'd certainly trust his judgement on speedy deletion of new pages, the great majority of which are completely uncontroversial in my experience. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support True cliche moment -- excellent candidate, wonderful addition to the admin corps. Xoloz 16:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support His record speaks for itself. No better candidate IMO. Joelito (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support obviously — Lost(talk) 16:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Definitely, well-qualified. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. An excellent editor, understands the policies, trustworthy and reliable, level-headed and civil. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Deals admirably with his share of disputed-discussion-closing already. His work on FAR reveals consistently good judgment even when confronted with criticism or dispute. Opabinia regalis 17:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support qualified for the job. - Anas Talk? 18:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Excellent contributions to Wikipedia, coupled with experience and understanding of policy. GhostPirate 18:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, good answers to questions and trust his judgement. Addhoc 19:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support I tried to nominate him way back last summer. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. I have seen Marskell do a lot of good work, he clearly understands policy as well as I would expect from an admin candidate. Although his AfD contributions are indeed a little thin, he has proved that his judgement is very sound. I have no doubt about his ability to use the tools wisely. Rje 19:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support :P. I cannot oppose this user :)! Yuser31415 19:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - Has addressed my AfD concerns. Contributed a lot back in mid 2006. —Dgiest c 21:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support looks okay.-- danntm T C 21:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support per above comments, and we need more admins with article writing experience and skills. Crum375 22:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 01:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong support; Marskell would be just the kind of admin Wiki needs more of—an experienced editor and article writer across a broad range of topics, with a demonstrated ability to stay level-headed in difficult situations, and an enduring commitment to Wikipedia, evidenced by his creation of WP:1FAPQ and his drive to revamp WP:FAR to allow more time for articles to retain featured status. All the necessary qualities. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Strong contributor, good writer, excellent understanding and use of policy. Disagreed with him on some points on this FAR, and that's exactly why I'm supporting :) Sorry, but opposes don't register much with me—there's more to adminship than XfD in my opinion. Fvasconcellos 01:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Excellent nom. FeloniousMonk 01:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Seems very civil and fair. ElinorD (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support seems like an excellent canidate.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oh good lord yes Jaranda wat's sup 02:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. support per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Good candidate, good contributor who understands most of wikipedia policies, and good answers to all questions. Daniel5127 | Talk 03:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Terence Ong 恭喜发财 03:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support per above. 6SJ7 03:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. 1000% support started off WP:1FAPQ and works on FARC dutifully and tactfully. Shows all the signs (to my mind) that they know what being a Wikipedian is all about, and how to be a great admin! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 04:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, well-qualified. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, good record. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 04:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support More than qualified. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. <cliche>"I thought he already was an admin..."</cliche> Has stayed cool on some contentious articles. Raymond Arritt 05:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. You want it, you got it. An 'advanced' user who will perform well any admin function he chooses to. –Outriggr § 09:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support per nom Elizmr 13:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Having interacted with him at FAR, I know he is a competent editor who can be trusted with admin tools. While I haven't always agreed with him, I have always respected his decisions and the way he can back them up with policy. Jeffpw 14:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Hemmingsen 15:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support A qualified user with whom I had positive experience on WP:ATT. Beit Or 19:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)20:03, Sunday, 18 February '07
  47. Support experiences in both the jewelry case (FAR) and the trash can (AFD) of Wikipedia. YechielMan 20:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support sincere contributer should do well as an admin.--BirgitteSB 20:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support, really deserving contributor for having mop. Shyam (T/C) 22:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Strong Support - brilliant candidate. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. WjBscribe 01:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support great candidate, perfect for the tools. Darthgriz98 02:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support If the user uses sysop tools once I will be happy that I voted this way.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 02:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Good candidate. Guettarda 02:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Very confident the tools will not be misused. Gimmetrow 03:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. semper fictilis 04:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Answers are good, record seems good, oppose comments aren't persuasive to me. PigmanTalk to me 04:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Strong and late support. I must confess a conflict of interest - I believe Marskell to be awesome. Yes, I was one of the ones who was pestering Marskell to let me nominate him. Proto ► 09:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Enough vandal-fighting or AfD experience. >Radiant< 10:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-19 10:48Z
  61. Support - Go for it. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 11:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Everything looks quite good here. IronDuke 19:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Can't understand the "no need for the tools" objections. Are we running out? If the opposition was based on the inability to judge Marskell's decision-making ability and/or knowledge of policy, or a fear of him running amok with the delete button, that would be understandable, but take a look at his history and see if those fears are well-founded. Yomanganitalk 19:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support per above. Cbrown1023 talk 23:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support, with pleasure. An accomplished and thoughtful editor, unfailingly civil and well-reasoned; more than capable of doing a fine job with the tools. --cjllw | TALK 23:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. -- Avenue 02:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support per nom and all of the above. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support this well qualified candidate, TewfikTalk 08:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. Good attitude, lots of experience, won't abuse the buttons. How is he not one already? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. Strong candidate, will make good use of tools. Jayjg (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Sure ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. My thoughts echo what Yomangani has said. There are not that many AfD closers, and there would be no harm in adding another person to help out. Nishkid64 19:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Solid editor, should be a good admin. -Will Beback · † · 21:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - An excellent editor; I'm sure he'll make a fine admin. Pagrashtak 02:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support - another long overdue nominee. Excellent editor who has show good judgment in all my interactions with him. Rockpocket 03:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. PeaceNT 04:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support - Marskell is careful and experienced, a good writer, and very civil in his interactions with people. Tom Harrison Talk 04:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support - BJTalk 09:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. Fantastic contributor. No question whatsoever of our ability to trust him with the tools. People don't need to be active in everything or know everything to be admins. We just need to trust them. - Taxman Talk 14:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. Jonathunder 17:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. Marskell's input at WP:FAR and W:ATT has been awesome. He manages to be both civil and persistent, and he always strikes me as a voice of reason. Top man. qp10qp 21:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Invaluable editor. Gzkn 05:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support--MONGO 12:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Excellent candidate who would benefit from having admin tools. --Aude (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Another one whom I though has been an admin already. Having been some contacts with Marskell on FAR, he has done a good job of keeping FAR runs smoothly. Even in a very contentious debacle, he has shown constant civility and unbiased point of view. Judging from his closing FARs reasoning, I'm sure he will be a very good administrator on other fields, particularly AfD. — Indon (reply) — 09:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support <<-armon->> 17:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Have had very good interactions with this editor in the past and he clearly will use the mop in a useful manner.--Alabamaboy 20:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Very interactive and is always very communicative with other contributors. Would make a great admin. He will certainly use the mop to help Wikipedia to his greatest ability. No concerns here! --Hernie 5 02:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support — fine contributor all-round. --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Hmm thought I had already supported... Per all above, would only be a benefit as an admin. Majorly (o rly?) 11:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support, maybe mine is the latest support vote. Causesobad → (Talk) 14:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose Not enough vandal-fighting or AfD experience.--Brownlee 22:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There are other ways one can support Wikipedia without fighting vandals and messing with AfDs Captain panda In vino veritas 03:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose No demonstrated need for the tools. Of course there are many ways to help Wikipedia, but most of them do not need the tools.--Runcorn 11:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How does that affect who we give the tools to? Even if they do not use the tools a lot, they still have them at their disposal should they be needed at any time. Moreover, this user has expressed an interest in AfDs. — Deckiller 12:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose "No need for the tools" is accepted as a good reason for an oppose. Expressing an interest in AfD is jolly weak - let him come back when he has more AfD experience.--Newport 13:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I just tried to count the number of edits he has made to AfDs, but stopped after 200. He also has experience in closing AfDs, as you will see when you look at his contributions. What more experience does he need? Kusma (討論) 14:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is odd - how can we reconcile Kusma's analysis with (aeropagitica)'s that there is "little-or-no work on vandal fighting/warning or contributions to XfD debates in the last six months or so"? Has Marskell stopped participating in AfDs?--Runcorn 18:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Heavy participation and closing of AfDs was about a year ago or so; AfD participation has been declining since, with not very much in the last six months. He certainly has a lot of experience, but not displayed it at AfD in the last six months. Kusma (討論) 19:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Marskell/VfD - I copied my RfA page (now disused) from this. He does participate in RfA and takes the time out to research as well, not pile on. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear: I do have many hundreds of AfD contributions. A majority (or plurality, at least) of my first thousand Wiki edits are to AfD, (along with a significant number to RfA). The AfD list was an effort to be transparent, no more or less; naturally some were kept. A little less than a year ago I moved to working on FAs more fully. What this shows, if anything, is that two years under your belt before an RfA can be a negative as much as a positive: if it were Feb 06, this would be a non-issue. I had thought "well, go make a bunch of contrib's at AfD, before your self-nom" but that would have been cosmetic and somewhat deceptive. The sum of the two years speaks for itself. (Note, I post this here because it follows logically from the above thread, not as a criticism of the opposing comment). Marskell 08:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "No need for tools" is a weak argument, and this is a weak instance of it. I, like other admins, found many admin tasks that I wouldn't even have thought of before I became one. It's more important for a candidate to be trustworthy, civil, insightful, and Marskell has enough experience for us to evaluate that. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-19 10:58Z
  4. Oppose. I do not want the delete button given to someone who not only has poor judgement but doesn't recognise it: "This page is not intended to show a deletionist agenda but rather that my additions to AfD have been made in good faith." But some of those articles were kept! Lack of understanding that, in good faith or otherwise, you misjudged how much content you could destroy doesn't give me confidence that, allowed to speedy delete articles, you won't delete too much. This is not a blanket condemnation of deletionists, just a concern about the editor's judgement. Grace Note 06:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone on new page patrol who makes nominations for AfD has a perfect record for too long. Sometimes a subject will appear completely non-notable, but in the course of the debate, people will produce evidence of notability that was not there at the time of nomination. That doesn't mean the nominator has bad judgment. —Dgiest c 06:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I made it pretty plain that I consider it poor judgement that one should nominate something for deletion that clearly isn't deletable. And doubly so that one should make a list of one's failed attempts to rid us of articles in an apologia pro sua deletionisma. I would advise you to read the "debates" in question before making any reply because it's not the case that suddenly it became apparent that these people or things were "notable" but that the candidate's idea of what is "notable" conflicted with the "debaters". I'm not inclined to empower people whose view of what is "notable" is too strict even for the content-destruction gang at AfD.Grace Note 02:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose This is not a judgment about your other contributions, which seem to pass muster from the testimonies here. But before you self-nominate for the sole reason to close AfD's you should get back in the swing of things and engage in deletion-related discussions first. Policies and policy interpretation have changed massively over the last six months. There is no immediate need for AfD closers, so I don't see why this self-nom can't wait two months. ~ trialsanderrors 01:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Given your work at WP:FAR I honestly thought you already were one, and I don't think for a second that you'd misuse the tools deliberately. However, for someone who wants to use the admin tools mainly to close AfDs, I'd like to see some more participation; a flick through your edits from September last year gives only 10 or so AfDs you've participated in. I don't agree with there being any need to be an admin to "officially" close FARs, as adminship shouldn't really indicate authority. So on balance, I'm staying neutral. Trebor 12:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I think that you are a very good editor and a valuable contributor to the project. I've looked through many of your edits in the user Talk and policy spaces and little-or-no work on vandal fighting/warning or contributions to XfD debates in the last six months or so. I don't think that you would abuse the admin tools, being the responsible person that you are, but I also don't see an immediate requirement for them at this time. (aeropagitica) 13:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. Same as the above two; content decisions are not admin decisions, and you don't seem to have enough XfD contributions recently to be closing those debates. -Amarkov moo! 16:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Vou don't seem to vandal fight or do WP:AFD but I'm confident that you won't abuse those tools.--PrestonH | talk | contribs | editor review | 00:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.